Страница 10 из 67
Lyotard, a profound scholar of Kant and the sublime, immediately stops to analyze this enthusiasm which is expressed by so many «disinterested» national spectators. For him it is a «modality of the feeling of the sublime», in fact extreme and paradoxical: an abstract presentation that presents what is beyond the presentable («presentation of the Infinite»). Bordering on dementia, itself an Affekt (an extremely painful joy), enthusiasm is condemnable as pathological from the point of view of ethics, yet aesthetically it is sublime, because, says Kant, «it is a tension of forces produced by Ideas, which give an impulse to the mind that operates far more powerfully and lastingly than the impulse arising from sensible representations».
Now, the Begebenheit, or sign of history, continues Lyotard, can be understandably found on the side of audiences watching great historical upheavals: first, revolutions themselves are like spectacles of nature, they are formless and thus account for an experience of the sublime; second, the spectators, as opposed to direct participants, are not empirically implicated and therefore, so to say, corrupt. However, being in the «theater hall» is an unprecedented privilege. For the feeling of the sublime experienced by the spectators spreads out toward «all the national stages», in other words, is potentially universal. This universality, as Lyotard goes on to show, is of a very special nature, for, quite unlike cognitive phrases, the feeling of the sublime «judges without a rule» (italics added). Its a priori is not a rule universally recognized, but one that awaits its own universality. Universality in abeyance, in suspense (universalité en souffrance), a promise of universality, which necessarily brings us to sensus communis. Characteristic of the aesthetic judgment, this common or communal sense is an «indeterminate norm» in that it does not guarantee that «everyone will agree to my judgment…». But, as a faculty of judgment, it does take account of the «mode of representation of all other men». To finish the argument, enthusiasm as a probative Begebenheit (and also a pure aesthetic feeling) calls upon a consensus which ends up being nothing other than «a sentimental anticipation of the republic» (in the form of a de jure undetermined sensus).
Here I will stop. I will only point to the one important consequence that follows. The universality invoked by the sublime (as well as by the beautiful), concludes Lyotard, is merely an Idea of community, for which no proof, that is, no direct presentation, exists or will ever be found. What there does exist, however, is a bond, a bond of «communicability» between two parties to a conflicting phrase, and this bond retains «the status of a feeling». Communicability, one might say, is a way of «logging onto» the phrase of taste and thus of informing it with varying degrees of heterogeneity. For Lyotard sensus communis (in aesthetics) signifies an «appeal to community» (italics added) which is carried out a priori and judged without any rule of direct presentation. What is a priori shared is «a feeling».
Of course, it is no discovery that Kant opens up a space for a thinking of community. But thinking Kant according to this exigency is quite another matter. I would claim that this very «retrospection» is a sign of change — if not a Begebenheit in the proper sense, then at least something that emerges from within contemporaneity and that tends to be associated with the present-day «condition». There is much to discuss inside as well as beyond the Kantian framework. Let us simply bear in mind the following. Community is never there, that is, it is not objectifiable. Not only does it remain unpresentable, but it ca
So let me emphatically repeat that community calls for translation. And it keeps producing its «as-if presentations» in so many various ways. I have chosen to speak of photography and the virtual affective collectives that it brings into being, which, of course, is just another name for anonymity. But anonymity is not timeless, to be sure. Rather, it is a way of approaching the post-Soviet, being an image of that experience (its «as-if presentation») and perhaps also a sign. But in the same fashion anonymity indicates the emergence of a new subjectivity in our not so divided world, and it is the task of the scholar to formulate its definition.
Agamben, Giorgio. Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive. Trans. D. Heller-Roazen. New York: Zone Books, 1999.
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida. Reflections on Photography. Trans. R. Howard. New York: Hill & Wang, 1981.
Bataille, George. Theory of Religion. Trans. R. Hurley. New York: Zone Books, 1992 [1989].
Benjamin, Walter. Theses on the Philosophy of History. — In: Idem. Illuminations. Essays and Reflections. Ed., with an Introd. by H. Arendt. Trans. H. Zohn. New York: Schocken Books, 1968, pp. 253–264.
Blanchot, Maurice. The Unavowable Community. Trans. P. Joris. Barrytown, N.Y.: Station Hill Press, 1988.
Buck-Morss, Susan. Dreamworld and Catastrophe: The Passing of Mass Utopia in East and West. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2000.
Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London & New York: Verso, 1991.
Kant, Immanuel. On History. Ed., with an Introd. by L. W. Beck. Trans. L. W. Beck, R. E. Anchor, E. L. Fackenheim. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 1963.
Lyotard, Jean-François. The Differend. Phrases in Dispute. Trans. G. Van Den Abbeele. Mi
Lyotard, Jean-François. L’enthousiasme. La critique kantie
Mulvey, Laura. A Phantasmagoria of the Female Body: The Work of Cindy Sherman. — In: New Left Review, 1991 (July/August), № 188, pp. 136–150.
Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Inoperative Community. Ed. P. Co
Petrovskaya, Yelena. Antifotografiya. Moskva: Tri kvadrata, 2003.
Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Образ: аполитичное в политике
Образ в его современном понимании тесно связан с проблемой кризиса — или, мягче, границы — представления. Там, где речь заходит об образе (А. Бергсон, З. Фрейд и др.), там наблюдается отказ от субъект-объектной логики постижения явлений самого разнообразного порядка. Взамен утверждается такое понимание, при котором становится возможным говорить о мире не с точки зрения его подчиненности рационализирующей установке мышления, а, напротив, с точки зрения вторжения этого мира в саму ткань нашего существования, то есть с точки зрения безусловного приоритета внешнего. Образ выражает концептуальную попытку зафиксировать те отпечатки, или следы, которые мир — до любой возможной объективации этого взаимодействия — неустанно оставляет в нас.